This comment and your first one come-off as quite catty. E.g.,
I like that you’re writing about something early-stage! Particularly given that it seems interesting and important. But I will wish you would do it in a way that telegraphs the early-stage-ness and lends momentum toward having readers join you as fellow scientists/philosophers/naturalists who are squinting at the phenomena together. There are a lot of kinds of sentences that can invite investigation.
(Emphasis mine).
Your criticisms are mostly in the downward-direction, meaning, they don’t point out how to make what you’re criticizing better. Furthermore, they tend to ambiguate saying that the post could be improved (implying that we can make use out of what is being proposed) and saying the opposite:
I think the phenomena you’re investigating are interesting and important, but that the framework you present for thinking about them is early-stage. I don’t think these concepts yet “cleave nature at its joints.”
It’s hard to tell if you are being condescending towards the whole thing—implying that she should give up the whole endeavor, or if it would be more useful with more polish. However, I will point out that even saying “this would be good if it were more polished” doesn’t add much value to be said even if it were to be taken at face-value.
If it’s good, it should be useful even before it becomes more polished. If it’s bad, we should say why.
(I am a student of the particular school of philosophy which states that things can be useful to use or believe in even before they have been socially-agreed-upon to become high-status incumbent members of the orthodox school-of-thought).
This comment and your first one come-off as quite catty. E.g.,
(Emphasis mine).
Your criticisms are mostly in the downward-direction, meaning, they don’t point out how to make what you’re criticizing better. Furthermore, they tend to ambiguate saying that the post could be improved (implying that we can make use out of what is being proposed) and saying the opposite:
It’s hard to tell if you are being condescending towards the whole thing—implying that she should give up the whole endeavor, or if it would be more useful with more polish. However, I will point out that even saying “this would be good if it were more polished” doesn’t add much value to be said even if it were to be taken at face-value.
If it’s good, it should be useful even before it becomes more polished. If it’s bad, we should say why.
(I am a student of the particular school of philosophy which states that things can be useful to use or believe in even before they have been socially-agreed-upon to become high-status incumbent members of the orthodox school-of-thought).